Pim Tool wants to livestream the debate on his own channel. He's worried that CNN is going to come after him for pirating their content (which he pretty clearly is doing). Musk is saying that DMCA (the law that applies to this sort of thing) doesn't apply and that any use of CNN's copyrighted material is fair use because something something public right to know. Unsurprisingly, they are both idiots.
Edit: Lmao I just got banned from r/TeslaMotors. I have never visited or commented in r/TeslaMotors. Incredible stuff.
The law on this is fiendishly complicated, but the crux of it is that snipping out small pieces of the debate and using them for commentary is fair use. Streaming the entire thing on your channel is not, even if you're making mouth farts over it the whole time, which is what it seems Pim is planning to do. It strikes me as telling that Elon has a flock of subject matter experts at his disposal who could easily tell him the truth but is instead electing to just make shit up because it suits his purposes.
I think his problem is that his perspective on legal matters is mostly his own fantasy, and that if he is wrong he can make his fantasy be true with his billions.
Tim Pool is gonna think he's protected by law because Daddy Elon said it was ok. When he streams the whole thing, CNN is gonna ask to take it down. Elon Musk is not even going to look at it when he approves the take down. Tim Pool will continue to simp for Musk.
You're assuming Musk is not a total idiot. This is an incorrect assumption.
CNN will ask for a take-down, Elon will publicly call them booger-heads and not do it. Lawyers will get involved, Elon will not get the result he was expecting, Elon will publicly call the judge, lawyer, and possibly jury if there's one all booger-heads.
You're assuming Musk cares about any of this. He will have forgotten Tim asked this question by the end of the day, he will not remember when CNN asks for the takedown, he will just do it (or somebody in his company will do it and he never hears from it). Then Tim is going to be pissed and Musk is going to make a stink about it on twitter, but he won't be able to change anything (if he even cares at all and there isn't some new thing he can drum up controversy about).
You ascribe way too much competence to him.
Furthermore, you can be certain that Pool will be accepting “donations” from his viewers in the live chat, thus exploiting the stolen content to produce an additional stream of income in real-time.
Yep, and since Dim's on YouTube as well, they'll be taking his shit down for breaking their ToS regarding fair use over that and several other things he'll do.
But everyone being able to see this without restrictions is undeniably in the public good. This venue is for the public to determine their representatives. Idk how you could claim anything but fair use.
CNN are airing it on their channel.
If you can't watch on that, you can watch it on their website, and their YouTube channel.
Companies like YouTube have ToS rules against just taking someone else's content and not heavily editing it and providing your own commentary over the footage.
Dim Fool heavily editing and adding commentary with his own biases wouldn't serve the public interest with this debate, because he'd be putting up modified clips to trick people into having certain opinions by taking the debates out of context.
CNN wants to protect the debate from that sort of behaviour.
It's really not that difficult to understand.
As Lawrence O'Donnell said on MSNBC a few weeks ago, televised presidential debates were invented in the late 1950s in order to sell more TVs to American households. There was a 14 year gap between JFK's televised debate and another in the mid-70s because again, they're not important.
They exist purely to increase ratings for networks.
If - in late June 2024 - you haven't figured out whether to vote for the convicted felon or the guy who's helped improve America in the past three years *without* needing a TV debate to help you, you're clearly lost or ignorant.
lol debates don’t even have a measurable effect on voter outcomes.
The historicity around how important this debate is… reminiscent of the hype around Dying Light 2.
I don't care about any of that. The principle that we have and should set is for public debates of possible public representatives should be open to the public, not within restricted networks that require extra resources to access under penalty of law.
These aren’t public debates though… holy shit.
It’s a PRODUCT.
This is a private platform (CNN) creating a broadcast event they get to lock down because they fucking created it.
It’s exactly why debates dont matter. They’re a spectacle.
What you’re asking for is for someone like PBS or CSpan would need to be the hosts.
Time to rip the band aid off and realize everything is a product for your dirty dollar.
> Streaming the entire thing on your channel is not, even if you're making mouth farts over it the whole time, which is what it seems Pim is planning to do.
While this may effectively be true in practice for matters like this, as enforced by the internal practices of various media companies, I don't think that's technically accurate from a legal perspective. Twitch might acquiesce to the demands of CNN, but only because they don't want to deal with the tedium of legal matters in court (even if they were likely to win at the end of proceedings).
What you're describing as "making mouth farts over it the whole time" *could actually be considered transformative* -- and from my understanding it's the transformative element that would make it fair use. So, for example, if you made a farting sound every time the candidates opened their mouths... as silly as they may be it would significantly alter what was originally being presented and, considering the political nature of debates, could be defended as political criticism.
I'm not saying that it's exactly as simple as that, but I also don't think it's as simple as saying you can't extensively rebroadcast something that you're altering in some manner or another. And the political element would likely come into the defense of this type of transformative project because, indeed, political speech in this type of instance might be given more leeway -- depending upon the specifics and what any particular court has to say about it.
> It strikes me as telling that Elon has a flock of subject matter experts at his disposal who could easily tell him the truth but is instead electing to just make shit up because it suits his purposes.
I'm not sure that Elon or his minions are wrong about this -- but it might be too difficult to tell until AFTER the broadcast. Because if TP decided to actually not make fart noises or say much at all... then we'd be in a situation where the content hadn't been transformed or altered enough to be considered protected as something new. On the other hand, a rebroadcast could be wildly transformative -- completely new and perhaps even unrecognizable relative to the the original content. And there is A LOT of gray area between those two extremes.
I'm older than a lot of Redditors and I do defend free speech from a libertarian-leftist/anarchistic perspective. I don't think CNN or any other business should profit off debates such as these. I think everyone should be able to watch every presidential debate in, pretty much, whatever manner they want to. I think presidential debates should sponsored by a non-profit entity and everyone should be able to use or manipulate the images and audio from debates in whatever way they choose -- within some realm of reason, of course. I'm not saying that slander or violent threats are acceptable, for instance. And I'm not saying that the debate should be directly projected into the face of random passers-by against their wills as the volume is turned up to eleven. Hopefully that's understood, but I just wanted to clarify a bit. Being generally and largely in favor of free speech... doesn't actually mean that I'm wholly in favor of, accepting, or tolerating of all possible types of speech in every situation.
The four factors judges consider for transformative use are:
- the purpose and character of your use
- the nature of the copyrighted work
- the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
- the effect of the use upon the potential market
Of those, at least three would likely favor CNN. The purpose is to comment on contemporary politics, which is typically given great leeway in law, but not so much that you're allowed to simulcast it. The nature is a live feed of a debate. Greater leeway is given to copying factual works, but because creators have the right to control the first impression on the market, I don't think even this favors Dimcast. The amount taken is all of it, which is a big deal. I cannot republish a biography of Churchill with my own footnotes just because the work is factual. I'm allowed to quote it, not plagiarize it. The effect on the market for the original is negative because some people will choose to watch the Dimcast stream instead of the CNN stream — the two are direct competitors. That's also a big deal. I am loathe to make calls on IP matters because they're notoriously squishy and judges have great freedom to rule how they feel, but this doesn't strike me as a close call.
Agreed. The fact that the use is commercial is already a significant strike against it being fair use.
As to transformative, that's quite specific in itself. The secondary work must alter the original “with new expression, meaning, or message" - or it risks being merely derivative.
I think this falls quite squarely into the 'no' category.
I think your last two bullet points are relevant in terms of why it would probably not be considered fair use.
>
> * the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
>
> * the effect of the use upon the potential market
I'd still make the argument and I'd say it's probably worth fighting if you have limitless time and money.
Even Elmo isn't immune. Civil penalties range from $750 to $30,000 *per infringing work*, and judges have the ability to award attorneys' fees, which could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars once again *per infringing work*. Then, if Elmo continues still to demonstrate that he doesn't care about copyright law, he could be held criminally liable for his actions, which means the possibility of jail time.
The government should sponsor all presidential debates and air them on public television. It would be the rare government initiative that actually benefits everyone.
"will X default to fair use" made me chuckle.
"have the matter handled externally" would be in court, where it would be Elon against CNN. You know that's not gonna happen.
Absolutely. The question really is, "Is Xitter willing to get sued to protect Pim Tool's piracy revenue?", to which the answer is, apparently, yes. Because Elon is a very smart person who is good at business.
Nah. A lawyer is very quietly going to tell Elon that he is wrong. He is a) going to take it down and make up a reason, blaming CNN and censorship or b) leave it up and going to posture a little more for his followers - whether or not with a bloviating brief from a lawyer that makes no legal sense - and nobody's going to hear from it again, because he is going to pay CNN in the background or threaten CNN in the background with an expensive legal procedure.
Wait, so saying mean things about Elon can get you banned from r/teslamotors? Ohoh! I wanna try!
Elon Musk likes horses, and putting children in small containers.
For just one day I'd love to be as confidently incorrect as Elon or Tim are here.
Also congrats on getting the shadow ban. It's weird because you didn't do anything wrong except apparently offend a Musk jock rider...
The Presidential debates typically aren't copyrighted, but this one isn't being run by the Commission on Presidential Debates so I have no idea what CNN's plans are for the IP. I obviously haven't seen the contracts, but it sounds like CNN is allowing others to air it as long as the CNN logo remains on screen, it's referred to in promos as "the CNN Presidential Debate," and the commercial breaks aren't used by other channels for analysis
The key thing here is that it isn't being held by the Commission and released into the public domain, it's being held by CNN. CNN is choosing to control their IP by subjecting rebroadcasters to a set of restrictions, restrictions that Pool has no intention of following. I'm broadly a fan of the public domain model, but I don't believe this is public domain material, which means Pool needs to get permission from CNN in order to rebroadcast it, else he's in violation of CNN's rights.
>Edit: Lmao I just got banned from r/TeslaMotors. I have never visited or commented in r/TeslaMotors. Incredible stuff.
the community of pro Musk subreddit do the usual automod bans if post to a musk criticism subreddif but they also say they research users so rantom topics about musk get the same treatment occasionally
Okay, I didn't realize he was going to provide commentary AND stream CNN - that's where I was lost.
I mentioned in another comment - I think the debate should be available to everyone for free, but I disagree that people should be allowed to stream it from their channel AND alter or add to it in real-time. Doing so will detract from the actual debate.
You will be able to stream it for free on YouTube, CNN's website (without a login), and many other places. I have no information about Beanie's plans except what's in the tweet, but the only reason to wonder that would be if they plan to stream the debate on their channel and talk over it like Twitch streamers sometimes do with movies (which is also copyright infringement, though smaller channels frequently get away with it because it's impossible to whack every mole). If they're not rebroadcasting the audio or video from CNN then there's no chance of a DMCA takedown and therefore no reason to ask the question.
No, it's a "Fox Check". He will be watching the debates slack jawed and dumbfounded at the unending torrent of incoherent stupidity pouring out of Trump's mouth, then he'll check Fox News for talking points to try to do damage control with.
*Talking over a response from Biden because he says it's a lie.*
[Furious clicking of keyboard drowning out audio]
*Loudly proclaiming he found a source, puts it up on screen.*
[Source says complete opposite of what he thinks if you read beyond headline.]
[Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/)
>CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate.
>Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
CNN, according to Tim, I haven't fact checked, will issue take down requests on anyone who uses CNN footage of the debate without getting permission from CNN.
Tim wants to live stream the debate, make comments over it, and profit from CNNs broadcast
In actuality, CNN is letting a host of other outlets stream the debate, you just have to follow CNN's rules about, for example, using the CNN logo and not interrupting to cut to a panel discussion until after the event. What's going on is Pim thinks rules shouldn't apply to him.
Ooooooh, I work in broadcast and for better or worse know about some rebroadcasty things. This was settled in the supreme Court in 2015 basically, when a company called Aereo(don't remember them?, yup) tried to basically stream (in 2012, newer concept then) all the networks. All the networks sued the shit out of them immediately.
It's never that simple with copyright. Streaming a presidential debate and adding external commentary would be much more likely to be considered transformative than simply streaming network tv.
Presumably Baldy will "fact check" and talk over Biden and praise Trump's responses "live" and wants to put it on X, and Elon is licking Tim's taint, claiming that U.S. law somehow doesn't apply to copyrighted material because of a rule Elon Musk just made up.
What more is there to explain?
So it seems like he (Tim) wants to do his own little biased fact-checking session on Twitter live while the debate is shown through CNN.....now CNN is saying it will DMCA strike any other media that is produced using its material so theoretically Tim will get a DMCA strike the moment he streams the CNN media....now he is checking in with Muskrat if commenting over the CNN livestream is fair use and they will ignore the CNN DMCA strike
Wrong, unfortunately. Unless it is footage of the House floor that is broadcast using government cameras, c-span owns the rights to whatever it makes.
But even if c-span was okay with anyone doing anything with the content they broadcast, CNN holds the rights to the debate. So, ultimately, CNN decides what is allowed.
Musk is up to his own shit again. The public has no right to see anything on CNN. They can only see if it if CNN allows. If they choose they can put it behind a paywall and not let anyone see it. They can put any restrictions on it. They probably paid a lot to trump, they definitely want to monetize it
They are setting this up, in order to claim "CNN manipulated the debate, which is why they had total control of the broadcast"... or something to that effect...mark my words.
So basically Elon says “the thing about laws applying in stores and digital platforms? Nah”
Wild
Absolutely crazy
The qult will utilize uneducated personalities to further their narriative
>DMCA does not apply.
Lol. This means that copyright owners will be able to sue *Twitter/X* (and not just individual users) for infringement. This could get expensive for the company.
Musk'll easily be able to afford any legal action, given the ridiculously high bonus he's negotiated with his car company...
... then try and offset the payments against his taxes...
if you're interested in watching the debate, why would you want someone talking over it to tell you what you are seeing and hearing with your own eyes and ears?
these people are 100% incapable of forming their own opinions about anything.
I am stunned that we have reached this point, but I’d side with… Tim Pool and Elon Musk on this one…
If you’re going to host something as important as a presidential debate, I don’t give a shit about your broadcasting rights, everyone needs access to it as a public service.
I agree - unless that broadcaster is providing commentary over top of it. With that included, people will not actually be paying attention to the actual debate.
His grief is starting to make sense now that I see the rules as someone else posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/s/uzN7I2FPAa):
[Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/)
>CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate.
>Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
I mean, as long as they don't do that themselves, I don't see the problem. I know CNN is a more liberal leaning channel, but Jack Tapper himself is a man who is only interested in the truth, at least in my opinion. Just straight up air the debate, they will be playing the clips for weeks and talking over it on every network.
So he's decided that the law just doesn't apply to Twitter? I look forward to that being challenged. Either he'll have to go back on his word and remove things or he gets fined, win win.
CNN is allowing networks to carry their signal as long as the CNN bug (logo) is visible. And Elon is wrong but since he’s a mental case, that’s nothing newsworthy. Of course people can do live blogs but they can’t simply steal CNN’s broadcast.
Pim Tool wants to livestream the debate on his own channel. He's worried that CNN is going to come after him for pirating their content (which he pretty clearly is doing). Musk is saying that DMCA (the law that applies to this sort of thing) doesn't apply and that any use of CNN's copyrighted material is fair use because something something public right to know. Unsurprisingly, they are both idiots. Edit: Lmao I just got banned from r/TeslaMotors. I have never visited or commented in r/TeslaMotors. Incredible stuff.
The law on this is fiendishly complicated, but the crux of it is that snipping out small pieces of the debate and using them for commentary is fair use. Streaming the entire thing on your channel is not, even if you're making mouth farts over it the whole time, which is what it seems Pim is planning to do. It strikes me as telling that Elon has a flock of subject matter experts at his disposal who could easily tell him the truth but is instead electing to just make shit up because it suits his purposes.
Elon fired all the experts. He thinks he knows what he's doing, and knows everything. Elon Musk is deeply stupid.
I think his problem is that his perspective on legal matters is mostly his own fantasy, and that if he is wrong he can make his fantasy be true with his billions.
I can imagine him being taken to court and then going all Sovereign Citizen in the courtroom.
He has strong civcit tendencies, so the "something something" might just be admiralty law.
I picture him doing ‘you’re a crook, Captain Hook’ Michael Bluth style. MARITIME LAW.
> I think his problem is that his perspective on ~~legal matters~~ reality...
Tim Pool is gonna think he's protected by law because Daddy Elon said it was ok. When he streams the whole thing, CNN is gonna ask to take it down. Elon Musk is not even going to look at it when he approves the take down. Tim Pool will continue to simp for Musk.
You're assuming Musk is not a total idiot. This is an incorrect assumption. CNN will ask for a take-down, Elon will publicly call them booger-heads and not do it. Lawyers will get involved, Elon will not get the result he was expecting, Elon will publicly call the judge, lawyer, and possibly jury if there's one all booger-heads.
> Elon will publicly call them booger-heads and not do it. I think formal process involves him sending them a poop emoji.
He will personally tell the remaining developer to draw him a poop-on-head emoji. Then sell a wrap with it on for the Cyberlorry.
You're assuming Musk cares about any of this. He will have forgotten Tim asked this question by the end of the day, he will not remember when CNN asks for the takedown, he will just do it (or somebody in his company will do it and he never hears from it). Then Tim is going to be pissed and Musk is going to make a stink about it on twitter, but he won't be able to change anything (if he even cares at all and there isn't some new thing he can drum up controversy about). You ascribe way too much competence to him.
And all of them will claim they are the victims of a government conspiracy to censor them, and their mouth breathing retard cult will believe them.
If that's all he calls them, they're getting of light. Ofc they haven't insulted his submarine.
His submarine usually being a euphemism. He hates it when people tell him his submarine is useless, and laugh at it.
He was smart enough to be born rich. I wish I thought of that.
And now the apartheid is supposed to be over in SA, so you can't even copy him.
Your first mistake was being born to poor parents... Rookie mistake 😂.
Elon Trump at this point
What’s the law on real farts?
I think it falls under a 'derivative' creation of beans or cruciferous vegetables. (Or Dairy)
This comment is underrated. More up votes, please
It makes sense to me. The people putting on the debate performance make their revenue from advertising and the streamers won’t show those ads.
Furthermore, you can be certain that Pool will be accepting “donations” from his viewers in the live chat, thus exploiting the stolen content to produce an additional stream of income in real-time.
Yep, and since Dim's on YouTube as well, they'll be taking his shit down for breaking their ToS regarding fair use over that and several other things he'll do.
But everyone being able to see this without restrictions is undeniably in the public good. This venue is for the public to determine their representatives. Idk how you could claim anything but fair use.
CNN are airing it on their channel. If you can't watch on that, you can watch it on their website, and their YouTube channel. Companies like YouTube have ToS rules against just taking someone else's content and not heavily editing it and providing your own commentary over the footage. Dim Fool heavily editing and adding commentary with his own biases wouldn't serve the public interest with this debate, because he'd be putting up modified clips to trick people into having certain opinions by taking the debates out of context. CNN wants to protect the debate from that sort of behaviour. It's really not that difficult to understand. As Lawrence O'Donnell said on MSNBC a few weeks ago, televised presidential debates were invented in the late 1950s in order to sell more TVs to American households. There was a 14 year gap between JFK's televised debate and another in the mid-70s because again, they're not important. They exist purely to increase ratings for networks. If - in late June 2024 - you haven't figured out whether to vote for the convicted felon or the guy who's helped improve America in the past three years *without* needing a TV debate to help you, you're clearly lost or ignorant.
lol debates don’t even have a measurable effect on voter outcomes. The historicity around how important this debate is… reminiscent of the hype around Dying Light 2.
I don't care about any of that. The principle that we have and should set is for public debates of possible public representatives should be open to the public, not within restricted networks that require extra resources to access under penalty of law.
These aren’t public debates though… holy shit. It’s a PRODUCT. This is a private platform (CNN) creating a broadcast event they get to lock down because they fucking created it. It’s exactly why debates dont matter. They’re a spectacle. What you’re asking for is for someone like PBS or CSpan would need to be the hosts. Time to rip the band aid off and realize everything is a product for your dirty dollar.
> Streaming the entire thing on your channel is not, even if you're making mouth farts over it the whole time, which is what it seems Pim is planning to do. While this may effectively be true in practice for matters like this, as enforced by the internal practices of various media companies, I don't think that's technically accurate from a legal perspective. Twitch might acquiesce to the demands of CNN, but only because they don't want to deal with the tedium of legal matters in court (even if they were likely to win at the end of proceedings). What you're describing as "making mouth farts over it the whole time" *could actually be considered transformative* -- and from my understanding it's the transformative element that would make it fair use. So, for example, if you made a farting sound every time the candidates opened their mouths... as silly as they may be it would significantly alter what was originally being presented and, considering the political nature of debates, could be defended as political criticism. I'm not saying that it's exactly as simple as that, but I also don't think it's as simple as saying you can't extensively rebroadcast something that you're altering in some manner or another. And the political element would likely come into the defense of this type of transformative project because, indeed, political speech in this type of instance might be given more leeway -- depending upon the specifics and what any particular court has to say about it. > It strikes me as telling that Elon has a flock of subject matter experts at his disposal who could easily tell him the truth but is instead electing to just make shit up because it suits his purposes. I'm not sure that Elon or his minions are wrong about this -- but it might be too difficult to tell until AFTER the broadcast. Because if TP decided to actually not make fart noises or say much at all... then we'd be in a situation where the content hadn't been transformed or altered enough to be considered protected as something new. On the other hand, a rebroadcast could be wildly transformative -- completely new and perhaps even unrecognizable relative to the the original content. And there is A LOT of gray area between those two extremes. I'm older than a lot of Redditors and I do defend free speech from a libertarian-leftist/anarchistic perspective. I don't think CNN or any other business should profit off debates such as these. I think everyone should be able to watch every presidential debate in, pretty much, whatever manner they want to. I think presidential debates should sponsored by a non-profit entity and everyone should be able to use or manipulate the images and audio from debates in whatever way they choose -- within some realm of reason, of course. I'm not saying that slander or violent threats are acceptable, for instance. And I'm not saying that the debate should be directly projected into the face of random passers-by against their wills as the volume is turned up to eleven. Hopefully that's understood, but I just wanted to clarify a bit. Being generally and largely in favor of free speech... doesn't actually mean that I'm wholly in favor of, accepting, or tolerating of all possible types of speech in every situation.
The four factors judges consider for transformative use are: - the purpose and character of your use - the nature of the copyrighted work - the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and - the effect of the use upon the potential market Of those, at least three would likely favor CNN. The purpose is to comment on contemporary politics, which is typically given great leeway in law, but not so much that you're allowed to simulcast it. The nature is a live feed of a debate. Greater leeway is given to copying factual works, but because creators have the right to control the first impression on the market, I don't think even this favors Dimcast. The amount taken is all of it, which is a big deal. I cannot republish a biography of Churchill with my own footnotes just because the work is factual. I'm allowed to quote it, not plagiarize it. The effect on the market for the original is negative because some people will choose to watch the Dimcast stream instead of the CNN stream — the two are direct competitors. That's also a big deal. I am loathe to make calls on IP matters because they're notoriously squishy and judges have great freedom to rule how they feel, but this doesn't strike me as a close call.
Agreed. The fact that the use is commercial is already a significant strike against it being fair use. As to transformative, that's quite specific in itself. The secondary work must alter the original “with new expression, meaning, or message" - or it risks being merely derivative. I think this falls quite squarely into the 'no' category.
I think your last two bullet points are relevant in terms of why it would probably not be considered fair use. > > * the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and > > * the effect of the use upon the potential market I'd still make the argument and I'd say it's probably worth fighting if you have limitless time and money.
Even Elmo isn't immune. Civil penalties range from $750 to $30,000 *per infringing work*, and judges have the ability to award attorneys' fees, which could be in the tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars once again *per infringing work*. Then, if Elmo continues still to demonstrate that he doesn't care about copyright law, he could be held criminally liable for his actions, which means the possibility of jail time.
I really want to submit this to /r/DepthHub as "/u/NihhiloZero explains how farts can be transformative in the context of Fair Use"
The government should sponsor all presidential debates and air them on public television. It would be the rare government initiative that actually benefits everyone.
The guy who said Trump would win 49 states is stupid?
I'm sorry for not warning you to sit down before I revealed that.
Thank you. I just assumed someone that rational knows what they're talking about
Tim is a self-admitted leftist after all.
"will X default to fair use" made me chuckle. "have the matter handled externally" would be in court, where it would be Elon against CNN. You know that's not gonna happen.
Absolutely. The question really is, "Is Xitter willing to get sued to protect Pim Tool's piracy revenue?", to which the answer is, apparently, yes. Because Elon is a very smart person who is good at business.
Nah. A lawyer is very quietly going to tell Elon that he is wrong. He is a) going to take it down and make up a reason, blaming CNN and censorship or b) leave it up and going to posture a little more for his followers - whether or not with a bloviating brief from a lawyer that makes no legal sense - and nobody's going to hear from it again, because he is going to pay CNN in the background or threaten CNN in the background with an expensive legal procedure.
Wait, so saying mean things about Elon can get you banned from r/teslamotors? Ohoh! I wanna try! Elon Musk likes horses, and putting children in small containers.
Fuck elon musk. He's an enemy of free speech and frequently censors speech he disagrees with or doesn't like. Also, I hear he has gonorrhea.
So Tim Pool is over inflating his own importance again and trying to be a victim in advance?
Shocking, I know.
For just one day I'd love to be as confidently incorrect as Elon or Tim are here. Also congrats on getting the shadow ban. It's weird because you didn't do anything wrong except apparently offend a Musk jock rider...
The Presidential debates typically aren't copyrighted, but this one isn't being run by the Commission on Presidential Debates so I have no idea what CNN's plans are for the IP. I obviously haven't seen the contracts, but it sounds like CNN is allowing others to air it as long as the CNN logo remains on screen, it's referred to in promos as "the CNN Presidential Debate," and the commercial breaks aren't used by other channels for analysis
The key thing here is that it isn't being held by the Commission and released into the public domain, it's being held by CNN. CNN is choosing to control their IP by subjecting rebroadcasters to a set of restrictions, restrictions that Pool has no intention of following. I'm broadly a fan of the public domain model, but I don't believe this is public domain material, which means Pool needs to get permission from CNN in order to rebroadcast it, else he's in violation of CNN's rights.
correct. and cnn is a real pain in the ass when it comes to licensing, so i have no doubt they will be protective of their broadcast.
Fuck Elon Musk. Ban me bitches
>Edit: Lmao I just got banned from r/TeslaMotors. I have never visited or commented in r/TeslaMotors. Incredible stuff. the community of pro Musk subreddit do the usual automod bans if post to a musk criticism subreddif but they also say they research users so rantom topics about musk get the same treatment occasionally
Okay, I didn't realize he was going to provide commentary AND stream CNN - that's where I was lost. I mentioned in another comment - I think the debate should be available to everyone for free, but I disagree that people should be allowed to stream it from their channel AND alter or add to it in real-time. Doing so will detract from the actual debate.
You will be able to stream it for free on YouTube, CNN's website (without a login), and many other places. I have no information about Beanie's plans except what's in the tweet, but the only reason to wonder that would be if they plan to stream the debate on their channel and talk over it like Twitch streamers sometimes do with movies (which is also copyright infringement, though smaller channels frequently get away with it because it's impossible to whack every mole). If they're not rebroadcasting the audio or video from CNN then there's no chance of a DMCA takedown and therefore no reason to ask the question.
Lol they're hunting us
Just got perm banned from r/teslamodel3 r/elonmusk and r/teslamotors lol
Muskrat is sniffing out non supporters. So much for a man who loves freedom of speech
just remember kids, if you're in school, don't say clusterfuck, say cybertruck - same thing. Bunch of thin skinned snowflakes
Sounds like you need to visit r/CyberStuck .
Elon Musk is absolutely an idiot.
Ban me too plz
Let's test this. Elon musk is a moron.
A preemptive strike when trumps lies are questioned
LMAO at little Timmy Pool “fact checking” literally anything at all, ever.
'fact' checks for biden, fangirl gushing for trump.
No, it's a "fax check;" he will be spending all his time checking for faxes.
No, it's a "Fox Check". He will be watching the debates slack jawed and dumbfounded at the unending torrent of incoherent stupidity pouring out of Trump's mouth, then he'll check Fox News for talking points to try to do damage control with.
It's a flax check He will be searching the studio for plant samples
A pure-blood knows to avoid the faxx, because it has the 5G in it.
I look forward to his channel getting deleted
*Talking over a response from Biden because he says it's a lie.* [Furious clicking of keyboard drowning out audio] *Loudly proclaiming he found a source, puts it up on screen.* [Source says complete opposite of what he thinks if you read beyond headline.]
He's gonna do some “fact dodging”.
[Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/) >CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate. >Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
Which is 100% reasonable.
CNN, according to Tim, I haven't fact checked, will issue take down requests on anyone who uses CNN footage of the debate without getting permission from CNN. Tim wants to live stream the debate, make comments over it, and profit from CNNs broadcast
In actuality, CNN is letting a host of other outlets stream the debate, you just have to follow CNN's rules about, for example, using the CNN logo and not interrupting to cut to a panel discussion until after the event. What's going on is Pim thinks rules shouldn't apply to him.
But the rules don't apply to him, he's soo much better than all of us. /s
Ooooooh, I work in broadcast and for better or worse know about some rebroadcasty things. This was settled in the supreme Court in 2015 basically, when a company called Aereo(don't remember them?, yup) tried to basically stream (in 2012, newer concept then) all the networks. All the networks sued the shit out of them immediately.
Yeah Elon is an idiot. DMCA or similar laws apply if you’re using their content to make $$
It's never that simple with copyright. Streaming a presidential debate and adding external commentary would be much more likely to be considered transformative than simply streaming network tv.
Presumably Baldy will "fact check" and talk over Biden and praise Trump's responses "live" and wants to put it on X, and Elon is licking Tim's taint, claiming that U.S. law somehow doesn't apply to copyrighted material because of a rule Elon Musk just made up. What more is there to explain?
So it seems like he (Tim) wants to do his own little biased fact-checking session on Twitter live while the debate is shown through CNN.....now CNN is saying it will DMCA strike any other media that is produced using its material so theoretically Tim will get a DMCA strike the moment he streams the CNN media....now he is checking in with Muskrat if commenting over the CNN livestream is fair use and they will ignore the CNN DMCA strike
isn't c-span pretty much open for anyone to use, or am I wrong?
Wrong, unfortunately. Unless it is footage of the House floor that is broadcast using government cameras, c-span owns the rights to whatever it makes. But even if c-span was okay with anyone doing anything with the content they broadcast, CNN holds the rights to the debate. So, ultimately, CNN decides what is allowed.
lol, elon gotta buy CNN first if he wants to dictate rules
Don't give the big nepo baby ideas.
Musk is up to his own shit again. The public has no right to see anything on CNN. They can only see if it if CNN allows. If they choose they can put it behind a paywall and not let anyone see it. They can put any restrictions on it. They probably paid a lot to trump, they definitely want to monetize it
Dim Tool
Dim tool
They are setting this up, in order to claim "CNN manipulated the debate, which is why they had total control of the broadcast"... or something to that effect...mark my words.
So basically Elon says “the thing about laws applying in stores and digital platforms? Nah” Wild Absolutely crazy The qult will utilize uneducated personalities to further their narriative
>DMCA does not apply. Lol. This means that copyright owners will be able to sue *Twitter/X* (and not just individual users) for infringement. This could get expensive for the company.
Musk'll easily be able to afford any legal action, given the ridiculously high bonus he's negotiated with his car company... ... then try and offset the payments against his taxes...
if you're interested in watching the debate, why would you want someone talking over it to tell you what you are seeing and hearing with your own eyes and ears? these people are 100% incapable of forming their own opinions about anything.
His fact check: "Bullshit, think hard about it."
I am stunned that we have reached this point, but I’d side with… Tim Pool and Elon Musk on this one… If you’re going to host something as important as a presidential debate, I don’t give a shit about your broadcasting rights, everyone needs access to it as a public service.
I agree - unless that broadcaster is providing commentary over top of it. With that included, people will not actually be paying attention to the actual debate.
Or like broadcasters that will edit it to make it fallow a certain narrative. They have been doing that for decades without the help of AI.
His grief is starting to make sense now that I see the rules as someone else posted [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/Qult_Headquarters/s/uzN7I2FPAa): [Article about the rules.](https://www.newscaststudio.com/2024/06/17/cnn-2024-debate-simulcast-guidelines/) >CNN has barred other networks from using split screens or squeezebacks alongside the live feed to add their own content. Anchors and commentators also cannot appear on-screen or via audio during the debate. >Both of these rules effectively make it impossible for other networks to turn the CNN feed into a unique version of the broadcast.
I mean, as long as they don't do that themselves, I don't see the problem. I know CNN is a more liberal leaning channel, but Jack Tapper himself is a man who is only interested in the truth, at least in my opinion. Just straight up air the debate, they will be playing the clips for weeks and talking over it on every network.
Musk the asshole is wrong.. …as usual.
This actually might be a legitimate concern. The majority report is worried about this as well with their debate commentary stream.
So he's decided that the law just doesn't apply to Twitter? I look forward to that being challenged. Either he'll have to go back on his word and remove things or he gets fined, win win.
CNN is allowing networks to carry their signal as long as the CNN bug (logo) is visible. And Elon is wrong but since he’s a mental case, that’s nothing newsworthy. Of course people can do live blogs but they can’t simply steal CNN’s broadcast.